Thursday, February 09, 2006

I received this the other day and have I got some questions.

The author is David E. Johnson is the CEO and Co-Founder of Strategic Vision, LLC, an Atlanta-based public relations and public affairs agency. He may be reached at djohnson@straegicvision.biz. He wanted me to publish this screed. I have. I hope he's happy.

Democrats in Congress should be thanking God for the Capitol Police (but of course they can’t acknowledge Him for fear of alienating their liberal base) for removing Cindy Sheehan from the State of the Union speech. Why do some conservatives want to spread the lie that people who call themselves "liberal" are not religious people? What kind of a Christian makes a statement such as that?

More then anything that any President Bush could say or do, the sight of Cindy Sheehan disrupting the State of the Union would have convinced voters that they can not trust Democrats with the war on terror and national security. Really, what poll did you take to back this up?

A disruption of the State of the Union would have overshadowed the Democratic response which was meant to show a Democratic Party that can appeal to red states. There was no disruption...what are you talking about?

Indeed, Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union would been a public relations disaster of the first degree for Democrats. Of course, Ms. Sheehan says she had no intent to disrupt the State of the Union address (one believes that as much as one believes that the President of Iran may recognize Israel and acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred). What evidence do you have that Cindy Sheehan is a liar?

The episode over Cindy Sheehan is not an issue of free speech despite what she and a few others want to argue. It is rather an issue of how the far left has come to dominate the Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy and the image that they present to Americans. Really?! I thought it was a legitimate questioning of what the majority of Americans beleive is a unjustified war.

Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, and Tip O’Neil were as partisan as Democrats as one could find but they had a respect for the presidency regardless of which Party held it. One could never imagine, Tip O’Neil allowing a Cindy Sheehan admittance to the State of the Union to embarrass Ronald Reagan. Did the Speaker of this House approve Sheehan's admittance?

Yet, that is what today’s Democrats did by giving Sheehan a ticket to the State of the Union. Despite the denials of the Democratic Congresswomen involved in inviting Sheehan, it is reasonable to believe that they expected her to be a distraction at the least and a disturbance at most. It is as if an isolationist Congressman had invited a pro-Nazi sympathizer to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 State of the Union. Did you skip some of your high school history class? In 1940, we were not at war with Germany and there was a vocal anti-war pro-isolationist group in this nation practicing their right of free speech.

Yet a disturbance by Sheehan would have been the worse thing that could have occurred for Democrats. The Democratic response that aired Virginia Governor Kaine and was designed to paint a less liberal party would have been overshadowed by constant replaying of the Sheehan outburst. Democratic leaders from Harry Reid on, would have been called on to say if they supported Sheehan’s outburst. If they said no, they would have alienated the extreme liberals from Howard Dean on, who have captured their party. If they said yes, they agreed with Sheehan, they would have alienated millions of Americans who would have been appalled at such conduct. So luckily for Democrats, they were able to duck the issue due to the Capitol Police. Do you think that wild speculation such as this is as valid as reporting what actually happened?

They ducked the issue but they fail to realize at some point they must address it. Democrats will have to decide if the far left who would actually consider a truce with Osama bin Laden, truly does speak for their party or not. If they are the new face of the Democratic Party, no amount of public relations or spin will be able to help them. Where in hell are you getting this crap from?

It's a shame that real dialogue on issues is obscured by the worse kind of hate propaganda. But hey, he has the right to say such tripe and I have a right to disagree.

5 comments:

SRBissette said...

Well done, Mike. Sadly, the letter you were sent reflects how far the extreme right will go to distort any issue -- including conflating no disruption into "what would have happened had their been a disruption??" to press their platform -- and ignore the obvious.

Simply put: Bush's refusal to deal with a grieving mother of one of the sons and daughters sent to war to pay the ultimate price has elevated her to her current position in the national debate.

It's much easier to demonize the woman rather than deal with the hard realities.

Marky Mark said...

Thumper's dad... Thumper's dad...

SRBissette said...

Bambi's mother... Bambi's mother...

Marky Mark said...

Oh yeah - that reminds me! Dobbsie won't know what I mean because he WON'T WATCH BAMBI!

Oh well. That's good. He is such a SENSITIVE arteest...

SRBissette said...

Ah, but will he see -- BAMBI 2 ("now even funnier on DVD!")??